Annexes to COM(2009)234 - Agricultural product quality policy - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2009)234 - Agricultural product quality policy. |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2009)234  |
| date | May 28, 2009 |
- to include geographical indications in the scope of the ‘Anti-counterfeiting trade agreement’ as well as the forthcoming ‘European observatory on counterfeiting and piracy’;
- that non-EU geographical indications protected in the EU from bilateral agreements are protected in principle in official EU register(s).
Finally, the Commission wants to shorten processes by streamlining administrative procedures : although registration periods have improved considerably since 2006, the Commission intends to reduce delays by completing its analysis and reaching the final decision more quickly, partly by early rejection of clearly insufficient submissions, whilst fully observing the regulations in force.
4.4. Organic farming
Since 1991, the EU organic farming regulation has protected the identity and the added value of the ‘ organic ’, ‘ biological ’, ‘ ecological ’, ‘ eco ’ and ‘ bio ’ labels. Organic farming is defined in EU legislation and at international level in a Codex Alimentarius guideline. This means consumers can be confident of the quality of organic products and it facilitates trade in the single market and with non-EU countries.
EU organic legislation was revised[13] in 2007 as part of the 2004 Organic Action Plan. But the level of market segmentation along national lines is a persistent problem in the EU, partly due to the lack of mutual acceptance between private organic labelling schemes and a proliferation of organic logos.
The Commission plans the following developments for organic farming policy:
- a new EU organic logo is under development. It will apply obligatorily to all EU farmed products from 2010, and should help to break down barriers to trade in organic products in the single market;
- a report on the application of the new regulation will be presented to Council and Parliament in 2011;
- in order to foster trade in organic products, the Commission will seek mutual recognition of organic standards with non-EU countries and will contribute to the development of the Codex Alimentarius organic guideline.
4.5. Traditional specialities
The EU scheme for registration of ‘traditional specialities guaranteed’ was intended to identify and protect the names of traditional products. However, with only 20 registrations since 1992, it has clearly failed to reach its potential. Despite the low take-up, responses from stakeholders to consultations have revealed support for the current scheme.
The Commission proposes to investigate the feasibility of introducing the term ‘traditional product’ as a reserved term defined within marketing standards (see section 4.2 above) and abolishing the current scheme.
5. DEVELOPMENT OF EU FRAMEWORK FOR QUALITY POLICY
5.1. Coherence of new EU schemes
In addition to the existing EU quality schemes, the Commission is considering the possibility to develop a framework for animal welfare labelling and, subject to a feasibility study, will extend the Ecolabel to food and feed. Council has asked the Commission to look at labelling options in the complex area of carbon footprint . Stakeholders have proposed further EU schemes particularly in the environmental sphere, such as product of high-nature value farming.
The Commission intends to ensure coherence of future EU agricultural product quality schemes and initiatives by proactively assessing the value added and advisability of any new schemes such as those mentioned above in collaboration with all services concerned.
5.2. Guidelines for private and national food certification schemes
Private and national food certification schemes have the potential to meet the information needs of consumers and buyers about agricultural product characteristics and farming attributes.
Performance in the market is likely to continue to be the main determinant of success or failure of private schemes, which will evolve according to how well they meet consumer demand, how much consumers are willing to pay for certified goods, and how expensive scheme participation is for farmers and producers.
Some stakeholders have argued that private schemes can have drawbacks: threats to the single market, questions as to the transparency of schemes (and credibility of the claims) particularly for schemes that certify to baseline requirements, potential for misleading consumers, tendency for schemes to be mistaken for official standards, burdens on farmers (particularly where they have to join several schemes) and impacts on international trade[14], especially with developing countries (see Box 4).
Developing countries Private certification schemes can act as catalysts for developing country access to the EU market. Viewed positively, private schemes present an opportunity that developing countries can use to their advantage by providing a common language within the supply chain and gaining the confidence of EU consumers in food product quality. The need to comply with standards can act as an incentive for the modernisation of developing countries’ export supply chains. It is also argued that increased attention to the adoption of ‘good practices’ in agriculture and food manufacture could also benefit the domestic population, producers, and the environment. On the other hand, private scheme requirements can be difficult to meet for some producers in certain developing countries. In the light of compliance costs, international donor assistance plays an important role in securing participation of small and medium-sized businesses, and smallholder farmers in developing countries. |
Box 4. Food quality certification schemes in the international context
On the positive side, the Commission notes that the issue of consumer confusion arising from different schemes with similar objectives is being taken up by initiatives such as the ISEAL Code of Good Practice[15], which claims to be the international reference for setting credible voluntary social and environmental standards. Moreover, proponents of existing schemes claim they have already taken major steps to harmonise.
In the light of these developments and stakeholder comments in response to the Green Paper, the Commission does not support legislation for private and national certification schemes at this stage. While recognising the private status of schemes, the Commission plans to develop good practice guidelines for the operation of schemes relating to agricultural product quality. The guidelines will be drawn up in consultation with stakeholders.
6. CONCLUSION
The strategic orientations set out in this Communication offer a logical framework for the future policy on agricultural product quality. Comments from the other Institutions but also from stakeholders will help to further refine and clarify these suggestions.
Taking into account comments on this Communication, and in the light of any further analysis where necessary, the Commission will:
- develop guidelines for agricultural product quality certification schemes in consultation with the Advisory Group on Quality;
- prepare the ground for possible legislative initiatives on geographical indications, traditional specialities guaranteed, and marketing standards, including optional reserved terms;
- investigate the potential for using the CEN standard setting body;
- improve recognition of EU quality schemes in non-EU countries.
This overall approach and practical steps should, in the medium term, improve communication between farmers, buyers and consumers on the quality of agricultural products, unify EU rules on agricultural product quality, and simplify schemes and labels.
[1] Agricultural product 'qualities' includes both 'product characteristics' (physical, chemical, microbiological and organoleptic features – size, appearance, taste, look, ingredients, etc.) and 'farming attributes' (production method, type of animal husbandry, use of processing techniques, place of farming and of production, etc.).
[2] 11-12.5.2006, Brussels. http://foodqualityschemes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en/documents/ReportSTKHHearing_final.pdf
[3] http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/events/qualityconference/index_en.htm
[4] Green Paper on agricultural product quality: product standards, farming requirements and quality schemes – COM(2008) 641, 15.10.2008.
[5] Conference conclusions, see Council document, Brussels, 18 March 2009, No 7696/09, AGRI 114, http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/09/st07/st07696.en09.pdf
[6] Stakeholder comments concerned notably the introduction of the Ecolabel and its potential overlap with the existing organic scheme. The Commission will undertake a study on this question. In addition, Commission is working on Communications on Fair Trade and Animal Welfare Labelling, and plans to introduce minimum criteria for voluntary sustainable fisheries labels.
[7] e.g. Codex Alimentarius Commission and the UN Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE).
[8] ‘Optional’ reserved terms do not have to be used to describe product in commerce or on labels, but if they are used, the product must correspond to the definition laid down.
[9] 'Place of farming' in the context of marketing standards refers to the place of harvest of crop products, birth and raising of livestock, the place of milking for dairy cows, and so on. 'Origin' may refer, in the case of a processed product, to the place of last substantial transformation, and therefore not necessarily to the 'place of farming' of the agricultural product. The horizontal regulation of labelling of origin and of provenance covering all food products is included within the Commission Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the provision of food information to consumers – COM(2008) 40. This proposal is under consideration in the European Parliament and the Council.
[10] The geographical indication system covers also fisheries products.
[11] As defined in WTO TRIPS Agreement Article 22(1).
[12] The Commission will prepare a report of the impact of ending milk quotas on production and marketing of cheese covered by geographical indications.
[13] Inter alia, the regulation now covers aquaculture.
[14] Discussions on private standards are ongoing in the WTO SPS (sanitary and phytosanitary) Committee.
[15] The ISEAL Alliance defines and codifies best practice at international level for the design and implementation of social and environmental standards.